Downvotes signal "would like to see fewer comments like this one". This certainly applies to trolls and nonsense, but it feels appropriate to use the same signal for comments which, if the author had taken a little more time to compose, readers wouldn't need to spend time correcting one way or another. The calculation I've seen at least once here (and I tend to agree with) is that you should value your readers' time about 10x more than you value yours.

The appropriate thing to do if you receive downvotes and you're neither a troll nor a crackpot seems to simply ask what's wrong. Complaining only makes things worse. Complaining that the community is exhibiting censorship or groupthink makes things much worse.

Looking at the comment in question, Denis claims that charity "only" rewards bad things and discourages good ones. That is nonsense on its face, and it's combined with mind-killing politics: ideological libertarianism about the immorality of paying taxes that benefit those labelled dysfunctional. I agree with Robin Hanson on this point.

(1) I don't see my comments as being political. If you perceive them as injecting politics, then I suspect it's because you are used to hearing similar things in a more political environment. My comments are about reason, empathy, charity, value systems, and how they fit together.

(2) I am unable to substantiate my positions if people don't respond. When people do respond, then I have some understanding of the differences between my viewpoint and theirs, and can substantiate. But I don't believe it's reasonable to expect all possible counter-arguments to be preempted in a comment of reasonable length.

(3) The "delicate balance" argument is specious - it is a form of bias in favor of what already exists. If we had a different system, then you would be calling that system a "delicate balance".

I can also see a potential for the current system to have a 'delicate balance' where changes trying to improve it could be offset by negative outcomes, but I don't think that case has been made.

Related: Reversal test

ETA: on second thought, more related: status quo bias

The frustration is the problem. If I keep getting frustrated than I keep expecting something other than reality.

Also, if my anti-empathy comment is being downvoted because it isn't part of a group theme, then the pro-empathy comments should be downvoted as well, but they are not.

This indicates you haven't understood me: pro-empathy IS the theme here on Less Wrong. For a variety of reasons, this community tends to have 'humanist goals'. This is considered to not be in conflict with rationality, because rationality is about achieving your goals, not choosing them. If you have a developed rational argument for why less charity would further humanist goals, there may be some interest, but much less interest if your argument seems based on a lack of humanist goals.

There is some relevant discussion of the issue of how our empathy/instinctive moral reactions conflict with efficient markets in this interview with Hayek. The whole thing is worth watching but the most relevant part of the interview to this discussion starts at 45:25. Unfortunately Vimeo does not support links directly to a timestamp so you have to wait for the video to load before jumping to the relevant point.

ETA a particularly relevant quote:

But we are up against this very strong, and in a sense justified resistance of our instincts and that's our whole problem. A society which is efficient cannot be just. And unfortunately a society which is not efficient cannot maintain the present population of the world. So I think our instincts will have to learn. We shall perhaps for generations still be fighting the problem and fluctuating from one position to the other.

I know exactly why the majority of people do not like the kind of relative status which a free competitive society produces. But every time they try to correct this they start on a course where to apply the same principle universally destroys the whole system.

Now I think that perhaps for the next 200 years we will be fluctuating from the one direction to the other. Trying to satisfy our feeling of justice, and leading away from efficiency, finding out that in trying to cure poverty we really increase poverty, then returning to the other system, a more effective system to abolish poverty, but on a more unjust principle. And how long it will have to last before we learn to discipline our feelings I can't predict.

People do to some extent vote based on what they agree with, and at least a few make no bones about that. But people also vote based on style. Based on if it feels like you are trying to learn and contribute to our learning or trying to appear superior and gain status. You look like the latter to me. And I think that you could be arguing the same things, in ways that are no less honest, and get positive karma if you just use different words.